Often times we get on the subject of a really classic bike (Hetchins, Masi, Peugeot, etc) and have very in-depth exchanges of information that add to our knowledge of these bicycles.
I know there are "Rolls Royce" cycles such as Rene Herse and Alex Singer that are, for the most part, out of one's consideration when purchasing a vintage cycle due to the hefty price tag that they bare.
There are so many quality bicycles from all over the world. But it appears the "big four" are: France, Great Britain, Italy, and the U.S.
Now if we were to take the bicycles researched and discussed on CR as well as the hundreds of builders that appear on the CR website, and put them into "tiers" how would they stack up?
I know every single person on the list would have a different order and it would be incredibly time consuming to try to do this. But I think it would provide us with a general consensus of what the CR list members consider "top tier" as well as "no comment" classic cycles.
The other thing I would like to see out of these lists is where Masi would fit in. Why Masi specifically? Because it seems to be the most discussed bicycle on the list.
So here are your tiers:
1. TOP TIER: An absolute classic in every way; a total rarity; a machine constructed to the highest possible standards. One of the most desirable cycles to collectors as well as curators.
2. UPPER TIER: A well constructed machine; very rare; a collector's bike, but not as rare as TIER 1.
3. MID TIER: A classic bicycle with some defining features, but mid-level components.
4. LOWER TIER: A bicycle within the time line of our group with low-end components and worth mainly what it is worth to the owner.
I know this is a "tall order" to fill, but where would the bikes we discuss fit in and for what reasons?
Ted Baer
Palo Alto, CA